Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Safety Without Semantic Disruptions: Editing-free Safe Image Generation via Context-preserving Dual Latent Reconstruction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that unsafe prompts can be redirected to safe images without editing the model, by merging two denoising branches—one on the original prompt, one on a safe caption—under a global-context threshold.

desk verdict Useful semantic-disruption metric, but the central piecewise equation contradicts the safety mechanism as printed and must be fixed before the SOTA claim is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13982 v2 pith:GEJDYAFR submitted 2024-11-21 cs.CV cs.AI

Jordan Vice , Naveed Akhtar , Mubarak Shah , Richard Hartley , Ajmal Mian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords Text-to-ImageModelsGenerativeAISafetyReliabilityModelEditingDiffusionSafeImageGenerationSemanticDisruptions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Model editing for safety—removing or shifting unsafe concepts—can quietly damage a diffusion model's semantic manifold, dragging benign nearby concepts such as 'red' toward 'blood' and making harmless prompts produce nonsense. The paper's alternative is to leave the model untouched and steer generation at inference time: a detector flags the unsafe input, a safe caption for the same class supplies a safe embedding, and a modified latent diffusion process runs two parallel denoising branches, one conditioned on the original prompt and one on the safe caption, whose latents are combined with tunable weights and a piecewise threshold meant to preserve the early global scene and remove unsafe content later. The paper reports state-of-the-art reduction of unsafe images on the I2P benchmark while maintaining zero semantic disruption by construction, because no concept is ever removed from the model. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns safety from a destructive one-time edit into a tunable inference-time dial that can be adjusted per deployment without retraining.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dual latent reconstruction: two denoising sequences share the same initial Gaussian noise $N_0 \equiv \tilde{N}_0$, one conditioned on the unsafe prompt embedding $x$ and one on the safe alternative $\tilde{x}$, and their latents are combined at each step as the weighted sum inside $\cos(\theta_\tau) = \frac{N_0 \cdot (w_x N_t + w_{\tilde{x}} \tilde{N}_t)}{\|N_0\|\,\|w_x N_t + w_{\tilde{x}} \tilde{N}_t\|}$. A global-context preservation threshold $\tau_{gc}=0.95$ selects, per timestep, whether the combined latents or a single branch drive the reconstruction; the intended schedule is to keep the scene-level structure from the original prompt early and let the safe caption remove local unsafe content late. The same mechanism also carries the two supporting modules: a nearest-neighbor classifier over labeled safe/unsafe cluster centroids in the text-encoder embedding space, and an LLM-based detector, both of which pick the safety spectrum and hence the safe caption for the incoming prompt.

What would settle it

Instrument the released code to record which denoising branch (unsafe-conditioned or safe-conditioned) is active at each timestep once the global-context threshold is crossed; the claimed late-step unsafe removal predicts the safe branch is active, while the piecewise function printed in Sec. 3.4 predicts the unsafe branch is active. Observing which branch actually runs, together with the resulting NudeNet/Q16 unsafe rates, settles whether the safety effect comes from the dual-latent schedule or from something else in the pipeline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that safe image generation does not require concept erasure, and concept erasure itself has a measurable cost: the paper shows that shifting unsafe concepts toward the unguided space—as editing methods do—also pulls proximal benign concepts toward it, up to 32% closer, so a benign prompt like 'a chef slicing a piece of meat' can lose its knife and meat. Its proposed method instead keeps both conditioning signals in the loop. For an irresponsible prompt $x$, the pipeline selects a safe alternative $\tilde{x}$ for the detected class, then runs two denoising branches from the same initial noise: $f(x,t)'$ conditioned on $x$ to retain global context, and $\tilde{f}(\tilde{x},t)$ conditioned on $\tilde{x}$ to guide safe content. The branches are merged by a weighted latent sum while the cosine similarity of the combined latent to the initial noise stays above a global-context preservation threshold $\tau_{gc}=0.95$, after which the safe guidance is meant to dominate the removal of locally unsafe content. On the I2P benchmark with NudeNet/Q16 safety classifiers, this lowers the average unsafe-image rate from 48.9% (base SD1.4) to 12.8% at weight $w_{\tilde{x}}=0.95$, and the paper argues this is state-of-the-art once semantic disruption is accounted for in its Safety Disruption (SaDi) Index.

Load-bearing premise

The safety guarantee rests on a single generic class-level safe caption (for example, 'showing a peaceful interaction' for violence) being able to redirect every prompt in that class, and on the cosine threshold $\tau_{gc}=0.95$ switching the denoising schedule at the right moment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same base model can serve unrestricted and safety-tuned deployments because safety is an inference-time dial ($w_{\tilde{x}}$, $\tau_{gc}$), not a permanent retraining choice.
  • Benign prompts remain exactly as aligned as before, since the model's weights and embeddings are untouched; for safe inputs the method's outputs match the base model's outputs.
  • The method can wrap any existing latent-diffusion pipeline by adding a detector and a safe-caption embedding, with no fine-tuning or weight edits.
  • Evaluations that look only at unsafe-image rates will systematically favor editing methods; the proposed Safety Disruption (SaDi) Index reframes the comparison by penalizing proximal-concept drift.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not pursue it, but the same dual-latent recipe could redirect generation for other goals—debiasing, style steering, object removal—by swapping the safe embedding for any target direction, since the model itself never changes.
  • A generic class-level safe caption may over-censor: steering 'violence' toward 'peaceful interaction' could also remove legitimate violent sports or historical imagery, so per-class caption curation is likely the practical bottleneck.
  • The threshold pattern (global structure early, local detail late) is consistent with a general property of diffusion trajectories; if that property holds, the piecewise merging recipe should transfer to other conditioning tasks, not just safety.
  • Because the safe branch adds a second full denoising pass, the reported inference time and FID increases at high $w_{\tilde{x}}$ suggest deployments would tune the weight per prompt rather than globally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an editing-free safe image generation method for Stable Diffusion. It classifies incoming prompts as unsafe via a nearest-neighbor or LLM detector, generates a class-level safe alternative caption, and runs two diffusion branches—one conditioned on the original prompt and one on the safe prompt—with a piecewise combination controlled by a cosine-similarity threshold tau_gc. The authors claim this preserves global visual context during early denoising and removes unsafe content during later denoising steps, and they report state-of-the-art safety on the I2P benchmark using NudeNet and Q16 classifiers. The paper also introduces a Safety Disruption (SaDi) Index to measure semantic disruption of proximal concepts caused by model-editing methods.

Significance. If the mechanism were implemented as the prose describes, the paper would offer a simple, tunable, editing-free alternative to concept erasure, with the notable strength that the main safety evaluation is not circular: safety is measured by external classifiers (NudeNet and Q16) on the external I2P benchmark. The proximal-concept semantic-disruption analysis is a useful caution for model-editing methods, and the ablations show a plausible monotonic trend between the safety weight w_xi and measured safety. However, the printed mathematical specification in Section 3.4 is internally inconsistent with the claimed mechanism and with the reported results, the headline hyperparameters are selected in-sample without variance reporting, and the SaDi Index as defined adds little beyond a rescaling of the safety score for editing-free methods. As it stands, the central claim is not reproducible from the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (8) and the piecewise definition after Eq. (10)] The piecewise function selects f(x,t) = f(x,t)' + ~f(x,t) when cos(theta_tau) >= tau_gc, but f(x,t) = f(x,t)' when cos(theta_tau) < tau_gc. The supplementary material (Fig. 8) shows that cos(theta_tau) is high only in the first roughly 20% of denoising steps and falls toward approximately 0.55 at the final step. With tau_gc = 0.95, the unsafe-conditioned branch f(x,t)' is therefore the only active branch for almost the entire late denoising trajectory, which is precisely the regime the prose and figure captions describe as removing unsafe content. As printed, the algorithm performs no late-step unsafe removal and should not produce the safety improvements reported in Table 2. The authors must correct the branch order or specify the actual late-step update (e.g., using the safe branch or a weighted combination), and they should also reconcile Eq. (8), which is a weighted sum of latents, with Eqs. (9) and (10), which define a sum of denoised outputs rather than a sum of latents.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Tables 2 and 4] The top configuration {w_xi, w_x} = {0.95, 0.05} and the threshold tau_gc = 0.95 are selected by comparing safety outcomes on the I2P evaluation benchmark itself (and, for tau_gc, on a subset of it). No validation split, no error bars, no confidence intervals, and no significance tests are reported for any entry in Table 2 or Table 4. The 'state-of-the-art' claim is therefore based on an in-sample best of the tunable parameters, and the monotonic ablations, while encouraging, do not establish that the best configuration is statistically reliable. The authors should provide a definite tuning protocol, report results on a held-out split, or give per-configuration variance estimates (across seeds or prompt subsets).
  3. [Section 3.5, Eq. (11)] Because Delta_P = 0 for all editing-free methods by the paper's own definition, the SaDi Index with alpha_1 = alpha_2 = 0.5 reduces to ISaDi = 1 - 0.5*S for every editing-free method. The ISaDi comparisons in Table 2 and Table 6 therefore add no discrimination among editing-free methods beyond a fixed affine transform of the safety score S. If the index is intended as a contribution, its weights need a principled basis and the metric needs validation (for instance, against human judgments of safety and semantic preservation); otherwise it should be presented only as an illustrative composite rather than as evidence that the proposed method is superior.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] The seven safe concepts are listed as a set, but the correspondence between each unsafe I2P class and its safe alternative is not given explicitly; this mapping matters because the safe caption is the only content guidance for the safe branch. Please present a table that pairs each I2P class with its safe alternative and include any sanity checks on the ChatGPT-4o-generated captions.
  2. [Tables 2 and 6] The I2P dataset is cited inconsistently: Table 2 cites [40], while the surrounding text cites [41] for the same dataset. The reference and table header should be harmonized.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (6) and (7)] The symbol U is used for both the unguided embedding subspace and the unguided output f(U); please define each usage and clarify how f(U) is generated (for example, with an empty or null conditioning prompt).
  4. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (9) and (10)] The notation D(x, N_t, w_x, gamma, t) suppresses the dependence of the noise prediction on the conditioning embedding, the current latent, and the timestep inside epsilon_theta. Please give the full function signature so that Eq. (8) is reproducible.
  5. [Section 3.5 and Table 3] The column headers 'Inappropriate' and 'Actual Label' in Table 3 do not state which metric is being reported (accuracy, true positive rate, or something else). Please define the metric and report the number of prompts and random seeds used.
  6. [Abstract and Section 6] The paper says 'We will release our code,' but no code or model weights are provided in the manuscript or supplementary material. Given the ambiguity in the piecewise definition, code release is necessary for verification rather than optional.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core safety numbers come from external classifiers on an external benchmark, so the paper is not circular in its main claim; the minor circularity is that the SaDi Index encodes 'editing-free means zero semantic disruption' by definition, making the disruption comparison partly self-referential.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (11); Sec. 4 and Table 2 caption]
    "After evaluating semantic disruptions and safety, we derive: ISaDi = 1 − (α1S + α2∆P ), where S defines the mean generated image safety, ∆p defines the mean semantic disruption for proximal concepts and, α1,2 define weighted scaling factors. Here, we place equal importance on safety and disruption mitigation performances, i.e., α1,2 = 0.5. ... We note that we do not compare our method in Table 1 as we do not unlearn unsafe concepts. Thus, alignment using our method (for safe inputs) is identical to the baseline model i.e., zero semantic disruptions."

    The SaDi Index inserts ΔP, 'mean semantic disruption for proximal concepts', directly into Eq. (11). The paper defines semantic disruption operationally as the shift of removed or proximal embeddings toward the unguided space caused by concept removal or model editing (Eqs. (6)-(7), Table 1). Because the proposed method performs no editing, its ΔP is zero by definition of the metric, not by empirical measurement. Plugging ΔP = 0 into Eq. (11) yields ISaDi = 1 − 0.5·S for every editing-free method, automatically giving the method the best possible disruption subscore. The Table 2 'state-of-the-art' comparison built on ISaDi is therefore partly self-referential: the metric's construction, rather than any measurement, guarantees the method's zero-disruption advantage.

full rationale

The paper's central safe-image-generation claim is not circular: Table 2 safety percentages are produced by two external classifiers (NudeNet and Q16) on the external I2P benchmark, and the method's weighted dual-latent construction is an independent, editable algorithm. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the method does not rest on a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The one genuine self-referential element is the SaDi Index (Eq. (11)): because ΔP is defined as a consequence of concept removal, 'zero semantic disruptions' for editing-free methods is a definitional identity rather than an empirical finding, and this identity is then used in the ISaDi column that frames the comparison. That inflates the rhetorical force of the comparison but does not by itself produce the safety numbers, so the overall circularity is minor. Separately, the printed piecewise function in Sec. 3.4 selects the unsafe-conditioned branch after the τgc threshold, contradicting the prose claim of late-step unsafe-content removal; this is a correctness or reproducibility problem, not a circularity, and does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method depends on hand-set weights and thresholds that were fitted on the evaluation benchmark itself, plus two unverified modeling assumptions: the early/late denoising split and the sufficiency of a single safe caption per class. The proposed SaDi metric adds its own hand-set weights. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • w_xi (safe guidance weight) = 0.75 / 0.85 / 0.95 (0.95 reported as best on I2P)
    Tuned on the I2P benchmark; higher values give safer but lower-quality images (Supplementary Table 7).
  • wx (global-context weight) = 0.25 / 0.15 / 0.05 (paired with w_xi)
    Listed as paired values with w_xi in Tables 2 and 7; no independent selection procedure.
  • tau_gc (global context preservation threshold) = 0.95 in primary experiments; ablations 0.55-0.95
    Chosen empirically as 'most optimal' from ablations on I2P/ViSU subsets (Supplementary Sec. 8, Table 4).
  • alpha_1, alpha_2 (SaDi Index weights) = 0.5, 0.5
    Hand-set to give equal importance to safety and disruption in the proposed metric (Eq. 11); no derivation.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard latent diffusion and classifier-free guidance equations (Eq. 1) from prior work are assumed.
    Sec. 3.1 builds on DDPM/LDM formulations cited from [19, 38].
  • domain assumption Early denoising steps encode global scene structure and later steps encode local details.
    The piecewise switch at tau_gc depends on this; supported only by the empirical similarity curve in Fig. 8.
  • ad hoc to paper Cosine similarity between the weighted latent sum and the initial noise N0 measures global-context preservation.
    Eq. (8) introduces this heuristic without a formal definition or validation of what score corresponds to acceptable context preservation.
  • ad hoc to paper A single class-level safe caption (e.g., 'showing a peaceful interaction' for violence) is sufficient to guide all prompts in that class to safe content.
    Sec. 3.2 defines one safe embedding per I2P class; prompt-specific scene preservation is assumed but not demonstrated quantitatively.
  • domain assumption The 'unguided' or 'unconditioned' subspace U is well-defined and semantic disruption can be measured by movement toward it.
    Sec. 3.3 uses U for the SaDi measurements; the subspace is not precisely characterized.
  • domain assumption NudeNet and Q16 provide ground-truth safety labels for generated images.
    Sec. 3.5 and Tables 2 and 6 combine these two classifiers; their errors are not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safety Without Semantic Disruptions: Editing-free Safe Image Generation via Context-preserving Dual Latent Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GEJDYAFR

@misc{pith2026241113982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safety Without Semantic Disruptions: Editing-free Safe Image Generation via Context-preserving Dual Latent Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GEJDYAFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13982}
}
read the original abstract

Training multimodal generative models on large, uncurated datasets can result in users being exposed to harmful, unsafe and controversial or culturally-inappropriate outputs. While model editing has been proposed to remove or filter undesirable concepts in embedding and latent spaces, it can inadvertently damage learned manifolds, distorting concepts in close semantic proximity. We identify limitations in current model editing techniques, showing that even benign, proximal concepts may become misaligned. To address the need for safe content generation, we leverage safe embeddings and a modified diffusion process with tunable weighted summation in the latent space to generate safer images. Our method preserves global context without compromising the structural integrity of the learned manifolds. We achieve state-of-the-art results on safe image generation benchmarks and offer intuitive control over the level of model safety. We identify trade-offs between safety and censorship, which presents a necessary perspective in the development of ethical AI models. We will release our code. Keywords: Text-to-Image Models, Generative AI, Safety, Reliability, Model Editing

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13982 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Top) Using concept removal for safe image genera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Typical text-to-image pipelines are susceptible to generating unsafe content when exposed to irresponsible prompts. (b) We introduce an editing-free, safe text-to-image pipeline that preserves global context and learned manifolds. We deploy an inappropriate content detector to identify the appropriate safety spectrum for incoming embeddings, which outputs a safe embedding that facilitates our safe guidance. Unsa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Using unconditional spaces for unsafe concept removal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Demonstration of hyper-parameter tuning. We visualize [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative results of how concept removal causes se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative results of all safe image generation methods compared in this work, highlighting examples across different I2P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of the cos(θτ ) image similarity when com￾pared to the initial noise sample i.e., Nt|N0 ∀ t ∈ TD diffusion steps. The bold line represents the mean similarity across test im￾ages. The dotted lines represent the min (lower) and max (higher) similarity valu…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the PCA-reduced clusters which we use to visualize how model editing techniques can consequentially cause [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: We perform cluster analysis on f(xR) ∪ f(U) and f(xP ) ∪ f(U) image sets and measure the compactness/spread of the cluster via. the intra-cluster distance of PCA-reduced im￾ages. xR refers to the collection of removed-concept images. xP columns refer to the proximal c…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Using real image datasets for model editing-based safe image generation methods can result in a degradation of artistic style as evidenced by SafeCLIP [32]. Consequently, this will result in images closer to a realistic distribution and thus, a lower FID. (b) Shar…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: We propose deriving ∆(Compactness) on PCA-reduced generated images to assess the diversity of each safe image generation method. ∆(Compactness) is derived as the difference w.r.t. the base model (using Eq. (2)). Here, we see that our method retains a similar output di…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: We present qualitative comparisons using prompts from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Qualitative comparisons using prompts from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: We present qualitative comparisons using prompts from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Qualitative comparisons using prompts from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stable diffusion v2.1

    Stability AI. Stable diffusion v2.1. https : / / huggingface . co / stabilityai / stable - diffusion-2-1, 2023. 3, 7, 15

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    The real dangers of gener- ative ai

    Danielle Allen and E Glen Weyl. The real dangers of gener- ative ai. Journal of Democracy, 35(1):147–162, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Benchmarking foundation models with language-model-as-an-examiner

    Yushi Bai, Jiahao Ying, Yixin Cao, Xin Lv, Yuze He, Xi- aozhi Wang, Jifan Yu, Kaisheng Zeng, Yijia Xiao, Haozhe Lyu, Jiayin Zhang, Juanzi Li, and Lei Hou. Benchmarking foundation models with language-model-as-an-examiner. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 78142–78167. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023. 7

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Neural nets for nudity classification, detection, and selective censoring (nudenet)

    Praneeth Bedapudi. Neural nets for nudity classification, detection, and selective censoring (nudenet). https:// github.com/notAI-tech/NudeNet/, 2019. 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science., 2(3):8, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Alt- man, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, et al

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Alt- man, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, et al. On the opportu- nities and risks of foundation models, 2022. 7

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Video generation models as world simulators.Ope- nAI Technical Report, 2024

    Tim Brooks, Bill Peebles, Connor Holmes, Will DePue, Yufei Guo, Li Jing, David Schnurr, Joe Taylor, Troy Luh- man, Eric Luhman, Clarence Ng, Ricky Wang, and Aditya Ramesh. Video generation models as world simulators.Ope- nAI Technical Report, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1877–1901. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. 4, 8

    work page 1901

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Hanqun Cao, Cheng Tan, Zhangyang Gao, Yilun Xu, Guangyong Chen, Pheng-Ann Heng, and Stan Z. Li. A sur- vey on generative diffusion models. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 36(7):2814–2830, 2024. 1

    2024

  2. [10]

    Ar- tadapter: Text-to-image style transfer using multi-level style encoder and explicit adaptation

    Dar-Yen Chen, Hamish Tennent, and Ching-Wen Hsu. Ar- tadapter: Text-to-image style transfer using multi-level style encoder and explicit adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8619–8628, 2024. 1

    2024

  3. [11]

    Dall-eval: Probing the reasoning skills and social biases of text-to- image generation models

    Jaemin Cho, Abhay Zala, and Mohit Bansal. Dall-eval: Probing the reasoning skills and social biases of text-to- image generation models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3043– 3054, 2023. 1

    2023

  4. [12]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, pages 8780–8794. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2021. 3

    2021

  5. [13]

    Openbias: Open-set bias detection in text-to-image generative models

    Moreno D’Inc `a, Elia Peruzzo, Massimiliano Mancini, Dejia Xu, Vidit Goel, Xingqian Xu, Zhangyang Wang, Humphrey Shi, and Nicu Sebe. Openbias: Open-set bias detection in text-to-image generative models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern R...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Unified concept editing in dif- fusion models

    Rohit Gandikota, Hadas Orgad, Yonatan Belinkov, Joanna Materzy´nska, and David Bau. Unified concept editing in dif- fusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Con- ference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 5111–5120, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15

    2024

  7. [15]

    Breach by a thousand leaks: Unsafe information leakage in ‘safe’ ai responses, 2024

    David Glukhov, Ziwen Han, Ilia Shumailov, Vardan Papyan, and Nicolas Papernot. Breach by a thousand leaks: Unsafe information leakage in ‘safe’ ai responses, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    Stable diffusion safety checker model card

    LMU Machine Vision & Learning Group. Stable diffusion safety checker model card. https : / / huggingface.co/CompVis/stable-diffusion- safety-checker, 2022. 2

    2022

  9. [17]

    Compvis sta- ble diffusion v1.4

    LMU Machine Vision & Learning Group. Compvis sta- ble diffusion v1.4. https : / / huggingface . co / CompVis/stable-diffusion-v1-4 , 2023. 3, 7, 13, 14, 15

    2023

  10. [18]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence mod- eling with selective state spaces, 2024

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. Mamba: Linear-time sequence mod- eling with selective state spaces, 2024. 3

    2024

  11. [19]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. NeurIPS 2021 Workshop on Deep Generative Models and Downstream Applications, 2021. 3

    2021

  12. [20]

    Flow++: Improving flow-based generative models with variational dequantization and architecture de- sign

    Jonathan Ho, Xi Chen, Aravind Srinivas, Yan Duan, and Pieter Abbeel. Flow++: Improving flow-based generative models with variational dequantization and architecture de- sign. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2722–2730. PMLR, 2019. 3

    2019

  13. [21]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 3

    2020

  14. [22]

    Re- celer: Reliable concept erasing of text-to-image diffusion models via lightweight erasers, 2024

    Chi-Pin Huang, Kai-Po Chang, Chung-Ting Tsai, Yung- Hsuan Lai, Fu-En Yang, and Yu-Chiang Frank Wang. Re- celer: Reliable concept erasing of text-to-image diffusion models via lightweight erasers, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15

    2024

  15. [23]

    Vbench: Com- prehensive benchmark suite for video generative models

    Ziqi Huang, Yinan He, Jiashuo Yu, Fan Zhang, Chenyang Si, Yuming Jiang, Yuanhan Zhang, Tianxing Wu, Qingyang Jin, Nattapol Chanpaisit, Yaohui Wang, Xinyuan Chen, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, Yu Qiao, and Ziwei Liu. Vbench: Com- prehensive benchmark suite for video generative models....

  16. [24]

    Black Forest Labs. Flux.1. https://huggingface. co/black-forest-labs/FLUX.1-schnell , 2024. 3 9

    2024

  17. [25]

    Auditing image-based nsfw classifiers for content filtering

    Warren Leu, Yuta Nakashima, and Noa Garcia. Auditing image-based nsfw classifiers for content filtering. In ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , page 1163–1173, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. 2, 3

    2024

  18. [26]

    Self-discovering interpretable diffusion latent di- rections for responsible text-to-image generation

    Hang Li, Chengzhi Shen, Philip Torr, V olker Tresp, and Jin- dong Gu. Self-discovering interpretable diffusion latent di- rections for responsible text-to-image generation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024. 2, ...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Cosmicman: A text-to-image foun- dation model for humans

    Shikai Li, Jianglin Fu, Kaiyuan Liu, Wentao Wang, Kwan- Yee Lin, and Wayne Wu. Cosmicman: A text-to-image foun- dation model for humans. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 6955–6965, 2024. 7

    2024

  20. [28]

    Latent guard: a safety frame- work for text-to-image generation

    Runtao Liu, Ashkan Khakzar, Jindong Gu, Qifeng Chen, Philip Torr, and Fabio Pizzati. Latent guard: a safety frame- work for text-to-image generation. In IEEE European Con- ference on Computer Vision, pages 93–109, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  21. [29]

    A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning

    Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6):1–35,

  22. [30]

    Localization and manipulation of immoral vi- sual cues for safe text-to-image generation

    Seongbeom Park, Suhong Moon, Seunghyun Park, and Jinkyu Kim. Localization and manipulation of immoral vi- sual cues for safe text-to-image generation. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 4675–4684, 2024. 1, 2, 3

    2024

  23. [31]

    Synthesize diagnose and optimize: Towards fine- grained vision-language understanding

    Wujian Peng, Sicheng Xie, Zuyao You, Shiyi Lan, and Zux- uan Wu. Synthesize diagnose and optimize: Towards fine- grained vision-language understanding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13279–13288, 2024. 1

    2024

  24. [32]

    Safe-CLIP: Removing NSFW Concepts from Vision-and-Language Models

    Samuele Poppi, Tobia Poppi, Federico Cocchi, Marcella Cornia, Lorenzo Baraldi, and Rita Cucchiara. Safe-CLIP: Removing NSFW Concepts from Vision-and-Language Models. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20

    2024

  25. [33]

    Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, et al. Learn- ing transferable visual models from natural language super- vision. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021. 3

    2021

  26. [34]

    Hierarchical text-conditional image gen- eration with clip latents

    Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey Chu, and Mark Chen. Hierarchical text-conditional image gen- eration with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125,

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Red-teaming the stable diffusion safety filter, 2022

    Javier Rando, Daniel Paleka, David Lindner, Lennart Heim, and Florian Tram`er. Red-teaming the stable diffusion safety filter, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  28. [36]

    Pattern matching: The gestalt approach

    John W Ratcliff, David E Metzener, et al. Pattern matching: The gestalt approach. Dr. Dobb’s Journal, 13(7):46, 1988. 4

    1988

  29. [37]

    Gaps in the safety evaluation of generative ai

    Maribeth Rauh, Nahema Marchal, Arianna Manzini, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Ramona Comanescu, Canfer Akbulut, Tom Stepleton, Juan Mateos-Garcia, Stevie Bergman, Jackie Kay, et al. Gaps in the safety evaluation of generative ai. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics,...

    2024

  30. [38]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10684–10695, 2022. 3, 6, 7, 15

    2022

  31. [39]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep lan- guage understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep lan- guage understanding. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 36479–36494, 2022. 3

    2022

  32. [40]

    Patrick Schramowski, Christopher Tauchmann, and Kristian Kersting. Can machines help us answering question 16 in datasheets, and in turn reflecting on inappropriate content? In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , page 1350–136...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Safe latent diffusion: Mitigating inappro- priate degeneration in diffusion models

    Patrick Schramowski, Manuel Brack, Bj ¨orn Deiseroth, and Kristian Kersting. Safe latent diffusion: Mitigating inappro- priate degeneration in diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 22522–22531, 2023...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, im- age alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning

    Piyush Sharma, Nan Ding, Sebastian Goodman, and Radu Soricut. Conceptual captions: A cleaned, hypernymed, im- age alt-text dataset for automatic image captioning. In Pro- ceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2556–2565, 2018. 13

    2018

  35. [43]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International confer- ence on machine learning, pages 2256–2265. PMLR, 2015. 3

    2015

  36. [44]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 3

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, 2024

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, 2024. 5, 7

    2024

  39. [47]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 3

    2017

  40. [48]

    General object foundation model for images and videos at scale

    Junfeng Wu, Yi Jiang, Qihao Liu, Zehuan Yuan, Xiang Bai, and Song Bai. General object foundation model for images and videos at scale. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 3783–3795, 2024. 7

    2024

  41. [49]

    Simda: Simple diffusion adapter for efficient video generation

    Zhen Xing, Qi Dai, Han Hu, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Simda: Simple diffusion adapter for efficient video generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 7827–7839, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  42. [50]

    A survey on video diffusion models

    Zhen Xing, Qijun Feng, Haoran Chen, Qi Dai, Han Hu, Hang Xu, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. A survey on video diffusion models. ACM Comput. Surv., 2024. 1, 3 10

    2024

  43. [51]

    An empirical study on evaluation metrics of generative adversarial networks, 2018

    Qiantong Xu, Gao Huang, Yang Yuan, Chuan Guo, Yu Sun, Felix Wu, and Kilian Weinberger. An empirical study on evaluation metrics of generative adversarial networks, 2018. 14

    2018

  44. [52]

    Text-to-image diffusion models in gener- ative ai: A survey

    Chenshuang Zhang, Chaoning Zhang, Mengchun Zhang, and In So Kweon. Text-to-image diffusion models in gener- ative ai: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07909, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    To gener- ate or not? safety-driven unlearned diffusion models are still easy to generate unsafe images

    Yimeng Zhang, Jinghan Jia, Xin Chen, Aochuan Chen, Yi- hua Zhang, Jiancheng Liu, Ke Ding, and Sijia Liu. To gener- ate or not? safety-driven unlearned diffusion models are still easy to generate unsafe images... for now. InIEEE European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 38...

  46. [55]

    To preserve the global con- text, a threshold variable τgc is required, which signals the switch in our piecewise latent reconstruction process

    Global Context Preservation Threshold Our proposed safe image generation method leverages weighted-sum scaling and a preservation threshold to re- move locally-unsafe content and preserve the global visual context of generated scenes. To preserve the global con- text, a thresh...

  47. [56]

    what are ten unharmful word associations close to Ci imagery

    2 nd Order Statistical Analysis of Semantic Disruptions and Proximal Concepts We exploit proximal concepts to measure the semantic dis- ruptions caused by model editing practices on text-to-image models. We proposed that the impact of removing unsafe content by guiding learned...

  48. [57]

    in the wild

    ViSU Experiments The ViSU dataset [32] builds from the I2P work reported in [41], leveraging an LLM to generate intentionally harm- ful and inappropriate versions of COCO prompts [42], each ViSU prompt has an associated I2P class label, though as discussed by the authors, the ...

  49. [58]

    Generative Quality and Diver- sity

    Safety vs. Generative Quality and Diver- sity. Analyzing Table 7, we observe that for SD1.4 safe image generation, our tunable method has a low impact on FID, reducing it by less than 10%, similar to safeCLIP. However, when increased to w ˜xi = 0 .95, we see that the FID in- c...

  50. [59]

    The safe and unsafe quadruplets used for model edit- ing leverage a real image distribution which would be fa- vorable for FID calculations

    utilizes the COCO dataset in their model editing frame- work. The safe and unsafe quadruplets used for model edit- ing leverage a real image distribution which would be fa- vorable for FID calculations. As a result, artistic represen- tations can be adversely affected, as show...

  51. [60]

    Hate” in the base image has the largest change, showing some representation of “Love

    We observe that there is a clear relationship between FID and diversity. Having distinct clusters in SafeCLIP and SLDmax outputs indicates that less diversity when com- pared to our method, which retains a similar output distri- bution to the base models and presents significa...

  52. [2024]

    1, 3 11 Safety Without Semantic Disruptions: Editing-free Safe Image Generation (Supplementary Material)

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.